Doubt it. A hacker's crime essentially requires the use of a computer. They couldn't commit it without one. A sex offender COULD potentially use a computer for nefarious ends, but his/her crime likely goes well beyond a computer. Big difference.

I have a friend who went to prison for armed robbery and a 2cd degree sex offense. He made the agent at an insurance company give him the cash, then had her go into the bathroom, disrobe and throw her clothes outside the bathroom door. He did not look, touch or molest her in anyway. They sentenced him to 14 years, which he did 6.5 years and got out. He has been on the sexual offenders list now for over 8 years, and has another 12 to go before he can even petition to be taken off. He is not allowed to pick or drop his son or daughter off at daycare, or school. Not allowed to attend school functions. Can't watch his son play t-ball. And can't get a decent job that does not involve backbreaking labor, when he has the educational credits to graduate and get a CPA if he went back to college for 2 semesters. Oops, can't go to college because all the ones around here have daycare centers on campus, which means he is not allowed on school grounds. Makes me glad I just robbed, stole and shot people, along with slinging drugs, guns and explosives. Because once I got off federal and state parole, I can go anywhere and do anything just about. And what I can not do is because of peoples' attitudes, not statutorily defined.

People do stupid things. The point of a justice system is to try to persuade them to not do stupid things any more. When the punishment is not even closely correlated to the crime, you start running a government that is against the people, even if some fuckheads like you and the imbecile who modded you up agree with it. That's a good way to start a revolution, to start people disrespecting and breaking the laws because they see them as unjust.

The point of a justice system is to try to persuade them to not do stupid things any more.

See, THIS is where we start having problems. The point of a justice system is to administer justice, NOT to try to disuade crime-- thats just one of the side effects. When you start getting into this mentality "whatever is best for society" when dealing with the judicial system, you can start to go really wacky places-- why not convict an innocent man of a crime if it would be best for society (if, say, the case was sealed, his guilt can be easily faked, and it would be a good deterrent)?

The justice system is designed to mete out justice, not revenge. When the punishment is only loosely correlated to the crime, you aren't dispensing justice. The only purpose it serves is to turn people against the law, because they see punishments as unfair. While fuckheads like you and the imbecile who modded you up may get behind it, most sane people are not. It makes a mockery of justice and all the stupid lists they make... people will eventually start ignoring those lists because so many non-offenders are on them, and then where does that land you? You can no longer tell a dangerous pedophile from a 19 year old kid who fucked his 17 year old girlfriend. So things go two ways... either you listen to the list, and turn the kid away, and he really becomes a criminal because that's the only avenue open to him, or the lists get ignored and you get a pedophile working with kids.

The fact that the USA has a much higher percentage of it's population incarcerated than any other first-world country should scare the shit out of you, because there are not a higher percentage of antisocial assholes over here than anywhere else. It means that we've got a system for breeding criminals, rather than trying to get people to behave in society.

Yes, he probably wishes he'd just shot her instead. If you're going to let people out of prison, they should be given some chance at reentering normal society. Otherwise, you may as well keep them locked up

I agree and all, and I know I'll get flamed for this, but the guy was found guilty of trying to meet a 13 year old for consensual sex. I realize 13 is young, but he's not an inherent danger to society like say, someone who committed a few armed robberies. Seriously... if he succeeded with an actual 13 year old, it would hardly be some kind of shocking tragedy. And even though I agree with the law and that 13 is too young, the "punishment" for these kinds of crimes could be some counseling.

The idea that we've got federal agents working to find these people and expose them is kind of pathetic. Who is safer? If your 13 year old is open to the possibility of sex, they will probably find a way to do it, and someone to do it with.

Standard disclaimer: I agree that what the guy did was wrong, I just consider him as much of a danger to society as someone who litters.

If your 13 year old is open to the possibility of sex, they will probably find a way to do it, and someone to do it with.

This isn't boy and girl meeting for milkshakes at the mall: An adult would clearly have influence and power over a 13 year old in this relationship. There's also a big difference between a 13 year old curious about sex, and a 13 year old being manipulated by an adult to have sex. By trying to meet for sex, he's long crossed the boundary of contemplation and into attempted molestation. I'm sure he claimed that it was his first time and boy did he learn his lesson.

Here is the problem - some pedophiles (or perhaps more nicely put "underage sex enthusiasts") have no problem with rather forcibly non-consensual sex often ending with murdering the "witness". Others have no interest in this and would be soely interested in apparently consensual sex. I say apparently because the people in question are considered incapable of consent.

I don't have much information on the "crossover" between the two groups, but I am pretty sure that it happens. So how do you tell the differ

So...shouldn't we put rapists on the same sex offender list, then? All of them are non-consensual, many of them murder their witness. Rapists aren't put to death in prison, which means they could just as easily go back at it. How do you tell the difference between someone who just wants to fuck another adult and someone who wants to fuck then murder another adult?

Just playing devil's advocate. As an aside, most teenagers start having sex at 14, 15, 16 years of age with other teenagers. Chances are all of

Oh, yeah, one thing I learned in prison was this little saying, "Fuck You!"

Makes me glad I just robbed, stole and shot people, along with slinging drugs, guns and explosives.

Paid back all the money you stole yet? Paid off the hospital bills you caused when you shot people? And you dare curse those of us who elected to spend ridiculous sums of money to keep you away from society rather than have you take a long drop from a short rope?

Looks like they called it right the first time around - you are a sociopath.

Uh, how does somebody's ability to understand the consequences and ethics of shooting somebody grow in a meaningful way beyond 17?

It grows until about 25. It's not that they don't understand the consequences, it's that the wiring of the brain discounts the personal danger. The "consequences" wiring is done somewhere in the 20s. So a 17 year old will know right from wrong, but will act more like an adult who knows he won't be caught than a person who considers the consequences.

Are computers now so ubiquitous, and potentially so broadly defined, that they're a necessity? Is an Android phone a computer? What about your Tivo? Is banning someone from a computer restraint of trade these days?

Personally, I would think that the answer to all of those questions is yes. I have no qualms with him being punished, but I think that this sort of ban is stupid... they might as well just throw him in jail.

The idea that you'd rather be in jail than live without a computer may only be insightful outside the slashdot crowd.

"Computer" under a strict definition, would result in a life similar to jail. I couldn't operate my thermostat to control the temperature in my home, use any form of entertainment other than a book (no CDs, DVDs, TVs, etc.), and driving a new car would be banned as well. Though a carbureted car without a clock or radio might be ok. When you take the definition of "computer" to be any gen

Eh, not true anymore in most places. Used to be they were targets if not in PC. And if you beat one down, no harm no foul. But by the end of my bid, if you touched one, the administration would have you charged in street court. And they tended to house the chesters with people who were getting out, not the lifers with nothing to lose.

I wouldn't say it's a restraint of trade - though depending on how you define computer ("an electronic machine which is used for storing, organizing and finding words, numbers and pictures, for doing calculations and for

What is scary for those convicted of such crimes is that computing devices are so ubiquitous that they're being integrated into common devices such as phones and televisions. An increasing number of televisions and content provider set-top boxes allow apps for access to twitter, facebook, instant messengers, etc.

Furthermore, essential services which used to be "offline" are now, effectively, online. Landlines and television are now provided to millions over IP. For those banned from computers and internet, I imagine the growth of technology will make it impossible for them to comply with their restrictions, either forcing a change of law and/or sentencing, or shoving these people back into jail due to inescapable consequences of the moving technology landscape.

Pedophiles who contact their victims over phone aren't banned from ever using a phone, yet apparently some judge thought it would be a good idea to prevent a system engineer of 10 years (from the article) from using a computer. A three judge panel concluded that "it is often necessary to use a computer to apply for a job, including at McDonald's and PETCO."

Why the heck do we have judges who are so out of touch with reality making these sorts of mistakes? If the guy can't use a computer and really wanted to meet kids online, what's to stop him from getting an iPhone or a Blackberry? Justice isn't about revenge, it's about upholding the law and meting out punishment and forcing rehabilitation onto perpetrators. Along the way it became about taking someone off the streets for a time while teaching them the best way to commit crimes and not get called. (It's called jail). And now, we've moved onto some judges literally telling criminals that even when they're not in jail, they can't be a part of modern society at all? [sarcasm] That'll work really well to keep pedos from kids [/sarcasm]

I'm pretty sure that there was some ruling in a lesser court that basically said that the internet is a right, not a privilege. At least, that's what the language was alluding too, and even talking in the media that way. But of course when you commit a crime you loose all your rights, right? Nope, you serve time and then get them back either fully or under some form of monitoring, such as having to check in with a parole officer or participating in group sessions. we always seem to want to especially crucif

Unlike receiving a DUI conviction and losing your license, while you are at the helm of your computer you do not risk careening into the other lane and killing a bus full of people. The computer is just a utility, not the vector.

The computer doesn't do the molesting, molester's do the molesting. The computer is one utility of many. If we start piecemeal restricting people from the things that could be used to aid in causing harm, what will we have left? Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.

Forget the emergency transponder, just plain no Car(it has computers in it). Or using an ATM, or an automatic ticket kiosk (for say mass transit system). Computers are everywhere. His credit cards may even violate that restriction.
A very good ruling IMO.

Forget the emergency transponder, just plain no Car(it has computers in it). Or using an ATM, or an automatic ticket kiosk (for say mass transit system). Computers are everywhere. His credit cards may even violate that restriction.

Facilities department where I used to work would keep track of the systems we used. They could count PCs and VT240 terminals (because the 240 had a separate base unit) but for them a VT220 was a "monitor" and not counted. They ignored VAX and Alpha servers and such like.

Even if this guy gets caught out using an iPhone, he could probably get away with buying an ARM development kit under the heading of "electronics".

My wife calls her LCD monitor an "computer" and gets confused about why autocad won't run on i

It should be possible to redirect all this the anger and popular hatred from pedophiles to sociopaths, and eventually ban them from positions of power as a far greater danger to other people than pedophiles. I don't care how "oppressive" or "undemocratic" the government will have to become to achieve this -- it will be still far superior to the current condition when positions of control, be it in government, business religious organizations, media or organized crime, inevitably end up being occupied by th

The verdict seems like one step towards
common sense. Releasing artificially "impaired"
individuals into society fails to promote the
general welfare. If he can't use a computer, that
causes more problems than it solves for the rest
of us.

A bigger step towards common sense would be
not releasing, true, hardcore sex offendors back
into the general population. "Life in prison" should mean LIFE
IN PRISON, for say, a violent rapist.

The final step towards common sense would be decriminilizing
the mere posessi

First off, there is the pretty much proven idea that people that find children as acceptable sex partners (willingly or unwillingly) aren't going to change. Period. Nothing that we know of today will change this.

The current thinking seems to be that if a child is an acceptable sex partner and they are incapable of providing informed consent that there is no difference between someone that "seduces" a child and one that conks the child over the head, drags them into the bushes and rapes them. Probably kil

One of the main reasons that a vehicle restriction is allowed is that there are alternatives; taxi, bus, bicycle, walk etc. What are the alternatives to computers? With a computer ban there is no possibility of any white collar job. Find one where you do not have to at lest read email.

Even finding a job at all would be a problem. The first thing an employment agency does is point one toward a computer and say "Do a job search". How many initial interviews include computer based testing? Many blue collar jobs require one to use a computer for time sheet entry.

By restricting a someone's employment opportunity severely there is only one means of survival; crime. Se we take a paedophile and push him towards a life of further crime. That is not rehabilitation.

If you're going to RTFA, read the actual opinion. It's in Jurisprech (a dialect of legalese), but if you can wade through it it's actually quite enlightening as to not only how sentencing works in this country (it is both more and less arbitrary and subjective than most people believe), but also to the work judges do in balancing competing needs. It's actually a pretty good read, and at 22 pages (with lots of whitespace and a rigid formatting convention that most C programmers would envy, opinions are not typographically dense) not even all that long... especially given that there are 2 concurring opinions and a thorough introduction.

Oddly enough, the judiciary, who are without a doubt the most lawyerish branch of government, also tend to write the most readable laws (and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new).

I am of the opinion that if you restrict someone to a life of poverty--punishing them in a way that guarantees that they can't get virtually any straight job--you will create a lifetime criminal. We need to have a solid system of re-entry after someone has paid their debt to society, and do as much as we can to help them become productive people.

Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.

Out of curiosity, why don't we do this? Your first DWI should be a mulligan -- but the second, third, forth and fifth ones? When I worked in the insurance business I saw DMV reports of people who had that many DWIs. Why the fuck are we putting them back on the road?

Most people do get their licenses taken away after the first or second one. I don't know in other states but I know in NY if you get your license taken away, it's quite difficult to get it back. Off course, then you get the problem of people driving around WITHOUT licenses.

Depends on the type of monitoring. I think it would be reasonable to prohibit the use of certain services and websites, but there's a lot of potential for abuse here especially once you get into spyware territory. We can't simply discard concerns about government intrusion and abuse of power just because the case involves sex offenders.

People organize their entire lives on computers, they're a virtual extension of your mind in many ways. If we get used to the idea that government can impose total monitoring on a computer because of some criminal punishment, what sort of other offenses will it end up being used for?

Not to mention it's impossible to rectify a mistake or miscarriage of justice.

I have to say, I've never understood this argument. I would regard the loss of my freedom as being as bad as the loss of my life. Are you really going to tell me that the state can repay someone who spent 30 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit?

The only source that says he existed is a single book, compiled from papers that come from almost a century later, that further contains all manner of information that can't be trusted - magic, superstition, etc. That doesn't make his existence likely.

Since we only have the bible and for variations of the life of Jesus as evidence we can at least say that since there are four variations of a story

No. We only have copies of the scrolls, codexes, etc. These all date fr

By your rationale, you should be lucky they let you have it back at all. In many countries such a case would be buried to spare embarrassment.

Just because justice cannot be 100% accurate does not mean that crimes should go unpunished. And I'm all for the death penalty for cases that are especially heinous, rehabilitation especially unlikely, and where the proof of guilt is especially compelling. Hardened criminals aren't afraid of jail, and true psychopaths aren't afraid of anything, but will alter their

Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.

Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.

That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would

30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.

Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)

Very poor moderation fellow. Although cutting off the offenders testicles and even penis would not stop a true pedophile. They would just offend using objects. Two of my professors when I was going for my LPC had experience with working with juvenile and adult sex offenders. One was blunt and said there was no cure. The one who did mostly juvenile offenders would say they had some success, and that some clients left and did not re-offend within the 5 year window they followed up in. She never would say the

Most people look at things like homosexuality and pedophilia the completely wrong way. There is no cure because there are no symptoms. The results and causes are reversed. This person likes males/little boys/whatever because he is a homosexual/pedophile/whatever. Not: the person is a homosexual/pedophile/whatever because of X Y and Z.

No the end results are not the same. Quite honestly being homosexual, or being a pedophile in the most pure sense (someone who likes underage kids) is just the same as a man preferring say, latina women or asian women. If someone likes beautiful women that doesn't mean that he will sleep with them, same thing with homosexuality and pedophilia. Just because someone is sexually attracted to something doesn't mean that they will actually have sex with them. Otherwise, we'd all have supermodel wives.

Quite honestly being homosexual, or being a pedophile in the most pure sense (someone who likes underage kids) is just the same as a man preferring say, latina women or asian women.

Personally I don't care what you like -- fantasize about having sex with kids to your hearts content. If you actually have sex with them though we should put a bullet in your head. Human beings are one of the few (the only?) species that can override our instincts/desires and exercise self-control. If your lack of self-control leads you to molest children then we owe you nothing more than a quick exit from this life.

In Canada we just have a separate law about using positions of authority to take advantage of underage persons. This way the age of consent can be low (14 yrs until very recent) so when the 19 yr old goes with a 15 yr old at a party on the 15 yr old advance there is no crime.On the flip side if you are in a position of authority over an underaged person and have sex with them you are pretty much guilty.

Except that supermodels are rare, have fully developed mental facilities, and have enough money to hire whatever security they need to protect themselves. Children don't. Pedophilia happens when pedophiles have access to children.

Given that some 5% of males are gay, it seems a bit ridiculous to call it an abnormal any more than calling ginger hair abberant. Calling it a 'mistake' is simply flamebait. Also, given that non-reproducing males offer a survival benefit for their own genetics through support of their siblings offspring (the so-called gay uncle), I would disagree that homossexuality is an inherently gene-terminal condition. In fact, in cases where resources are tight, more gay males would increase population fitness by focussing more resources on fewer children and so increasing their survival potential.

Also, many gay and bi males still want offspring and produce them, even though their primary attraction is to other males. I know a few gay/bi people who have successfully reared children.

And don't forget - there are heterosexual pedophiles too. The notion that homosexuals are more likely to mollest children was FUD spread by the religious right in the late 80s and early 90s to whip up public vehemence against gay people.

Pedophilia does not happen when pedophiles have access to children. It happens when someone is a pedophile. And did it ever occur to you that there are pedophiles that wish they weren't pedophiles, and would never, ever act upon those urges? They're out there, and they deserve some god damned respect.

Agree with me on what? I simply asked how they are different, other than the object of attraction.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is in whether or not society regards them as acceptable, and whether or not society thinks these groups are more or less likely to sexually assault other people.

The difference is in the power differential. With pedophilia, the relationship is between an adult and a child. The child hasn't the maturity to understand the relationship, to make a decision for him or herself about whether or not the relationship is right or wrong, and to meaningfully disagree with the adult. Because all the power in the relationship is in one side, the relationship cannot be balanced and healthy. When the child is prepubescent, he or she would not have the same physical attraction as an adult, and therefore cannot participate in the relationship at the same level. Pedophilia is equally wrong when the adult is male or female, or the child is male or female.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a relationship between two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex. They are both presumed to be mature enough to understand what a sexual relationship means, and to consent to be in one. Although one individual may have a somewhat more forceful personality than the other, both have the ability to influence the relationship, and to leave it if they choose.

So, when a male hockey coach has sex with the 9 year old boys on his team, that is reprehensible because it is pedophilia, not because it is homosexual.

The reason pedophilia is considered reprehensible is because it tends to leave the children emotionally damaged, unable to form proper relationships, and generally messed up for life.

There is one respect where they are similar. Most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex who are similar to them. Mature adults are very different from children, so an adult who is sexually attracted to a child is very unusual, like someone who is sexually attracted to a dog or a toaster. Some research shows that about 1% of the population is primarily attracted to children, and about 10% is attracted to the same sex.

In summary: being attracted to the same sex is somewhat unusual (~10%), whereas being attracted to children is very unusual (~1%). Engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult of the same sex is no worse than (and no better than) a mature relationship between equals of the opposite sex. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is a highly uneven relationship which results in severe psychological damage to the child.

There are heterosexuals who rape and take advantage of others, does that mean that heterosexual attraction in itself is a problem?

I happen to be gay myself, and I certainly dislike having my orientation compared to child molestation, but that is not a good excuse to continue to pretend that every pedophile is some inherently sick person who hurt little children. Some of them do, many of them would rather kill themselves than hurting the very people they love. To p

On a few different levels, this reminds me of the the recent arguments towards 3 strikes and loss of internet access for pirating files.Anyone who thinks someone should lose their balls for pedophilia would most likely also agree that loss of internet for file sharing is as just.

And any judge who thinks that loss of internet is too harsh of a punishment for pedophilia must also agree that loss of internet for filing sharing is too harsh.

Unless the judge thinks that file sharing is worse then pedophilia that

But that's the latest trend, as exemplified by this story. Prisons is out of fashion so the justice system is coming up with new and crazy ideas. They may not understand what they're talking about, but when has that ever stopped them?

Maybe the world is wrong. Here in Portugal drug usage has been decriminalized, and you can actually get free help as long as you stick very firmly with the rehabilitation program; you move to a "center" (just a house, really) in the country and you get counseling and help from psychologists. On the other hand, you have to work there to pay for your stay.

By not treating them like criminals drug usage has been dropping constantly [time.com], in spite of the Church's FUD.

Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children. Sometimes there is "crossover" where someone that apparently just wanted to have fun turns around and kills their next conquest.

Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?

Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.

The alternative would be just keeping them all in jail or killing them. Both are pretty e

Our records indicate you spend an unacceptably disproportionate amount of time thinking of the children. You have automatically been flagged as a sex offender, and as such are subject to permanent imprisonment or execution.

Now, before you panic, we realize you didn't harm anyone. Execution is unlikely. See? Nothing to be afraid of. Now, please be a dear and follow these nice guards out to the van. I'll see to it your family is notified.

You see, I believe in fair and proportional punishment. I also believe in not crippling someone's involement in society when they are released back into it. If he hasn't paid his dues, then why the fuck is he out of jail?

Put him in jail, put him in a mental facility, put him on parole... whatever you need to do THAT FITS THE SYSTEM (and doesn't go into the "crime + computer = OMG WTF KILL HIM" pattern)

I think counterproductive is probably a better way to describe it than unfair. If you expect someone to be released from jail and become somehow productive again, you can't really deprive them of the use of a computer these days. It may make sense for some sort of usage restriction, like you can only use the computer access at some sort of kiosk or supervised area or at work, but you can't own one or you can't have internet access or something like that.

However, a complete ban on usage of computers these days is like banning him from using a phone or the mail. Otherwise you might as well hand him an address for a homeless shelter and instructions on how to pick up his welfare checks, because he's going to be entirely useless to anyone from then on. I think the only thing worse than releasing a predator back into the community is having to pay taxes to keep said pedophile alive while he could be working for a living (and paying his own taxes).